Is That Father Phyllis? by J. Reagan

One of the characteristics of the dissenters who arose after Vatican II has been their refusal to accept official decisions of the Church when those decisions did not suit them. (We see this also in the political world when elections and votes are not to some group’s liking; they simply rebel against it. This is an ominous turn of events in a democratic society. It is less so in the Church because of the protection of the Holy Spirit.) Some who call themselves Catholics still favor abortion and same-sex marriage. Some condemn the Latin Mass as antiquated. Others reject the Church’s ban against open Communion (the idea that anyone can receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.) Another persistent dissent involves the concept of women priests. Some “Catholic” women have gone so far as to get themselves “ordained” illicitly and invalidly.

The Catholic Church has never had women priests. It is the only contemporary Christian religion that does not have female clergy. History has told us that many of the older religions had goddesses and priestesses. A prominent goddess in the Middle East was Astarte, a fertility goddess. Her priestesses’ form of worship in some places was sexual intercourse with followers. So having women clergy is not a new idea at all. The Jewish and Christian religions were unusual for their time because they had a male clergy only.

In our own time, there is probably nothing that a Catholic priest can do that a woman could not do, and some women could do it better than some priests I have known. But that is not the point. The women in the Gospels were all more worthy than the Apostles before Pentecost. Who was more worthy than Mary, the Mother of Christ? Pope John Paul II said officially that there will be no women priests and that the matter is closed.

Those who agitate for women’s ordination are still at it. The most often heard argument is that Christ did not select women because of the culture in which He lived. It was male-dominated, and He would not want to be different. And, had He lived in our culture, He most certainly would have chosen some women to be Apostles.

This argument reveals a profound ignorance of who Christ is and the nature of God. First of all, Christ was a divine Person; he was not merely a Jewish man of his time. Because He was divine, he was also God in human form. As a God-man, he had all the attributes of God. As God he was not culture-bound. As God He had divine omniscience; he knew the future because he was eternal. To be eternal means to exist outside of time, having no past, present or future. To God, human history is one big present, one big now. This means that Christ was completely aware of modern feminism and its demands. It was not a surprise to Him. Had he lived now, he would still not have chosen women.

He did not make a mistake as some contend. (If He had, then He would not be God, and we would be fools to be His followers because he would be no more dependable than any other human religious leader.)

Why a male-only clergy?

Priests were to act in the name of Christ as He Himself set it up on the first Holy Thursday. The term is “in persona Christi.” Women simply cannot represent the human side of Christ.

The priest is the dispenser of grace through the ministry of the Sacraments. As such, he is analogous to God the Father who also dispenses divine grace.

Let’s assume there could be a valid argument that women would make better priests. The whole history of Christianity shows that God is not in the habit of using “the best” available to do his work. It is usually the humble, the unassuming, the one who considers himself or herself unworthy of any divine consideration. Ex. Mother Teresa, St. John Vianney, Sr. Faustina Kowalska, the Little Flower and on and on. Most of the damage to the Church over the years has been done by clergy who thought they were better or smarter than everyone else. Women have rarely been negatives in the Church. Nevertheless, Christ still mandated a male-clergy, and He is God, who is a bit smarter than we are. When you acquire divine intelligence, you can argue about it then.

Then Christ must have considered women to be second rate or inferior. Not at all. The women in the Gospels all come out looking better than the men. The most perfect human ever created was a woman. Women saints have done great things for the Church, and unsung women have always been necessary to the church’s mission.

Women have a role in the Church and in the world that no man can ever fulfill. By divine Will, they are the nurturers, the teachers and the heart of families; without good families, there is no good society.

Catholics have a choice. They can follow our divine Lord or they can follow the politically-correct crowd and play like the Church has been wrong for 2000 years until they came on the scene to “get it right”.

The militant feminists have an ultimately destructive agenda for women. God’s plan is really much better.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

As usual, Jack, you are right one about this subject. I have never been able to believe that women are called to the role of priest. In the Episcopal Church I have seen great damage done to the woman and to her realationship with her husband when she has stepped into the role of the man. Women are to be honored, cherished, and greatly appreciated, but they cannot be priests. By definition they are not priests even though they might think they are. It has been a sad time in TEC ever since this practice was inagurated. In Christ, Fr. Richard Williams+